Tennant disagreement

[olly1070]

Evening all,

 

My tenants have chopped down the tree in the picture at the house I rent to them. Can anyone identify it and give me a rough price to replace it as i will need to deduct this cost from their deposit. Thanks in advance.

[felixthelogchopper]

Or £1000 then. Can you just charge them that for the "damage" without having to actually spend it on replacement? £1000 in your pocket is much better than a new tree.

 

Or is that not possible now with the new laws on tennancy/deposits?

 

 

There certainly is no law that says its "criminal damage" and there is no law that says they "have" to maintain the garden (you could rent somewhere where groundsmaintenance is paid for out of the rent) so that depends on your tennancy agreement but I think we are all agreed that cutting a tree down is wrong, even if only moraly wrong.

 

By s1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971:

 

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

 

The definitions of property belonging to another, proprietary interest and damage etc are all provided for by the Act and all define this as Criminal Damage.

[easy-lift guy]

Tenants can be very selfish. I believe Felix is correct based on the law as it is written. The only problems I see include any additional damages and losses that can be claimed out of the security deposit. What happens if there are additional losses that exceed the deposit total?. Tenants over here can and will destroy a property from within and out and never give any consideration about the fact that they do not own the property, they just think they do!.

easy-lift guy

[Farmerdowling]

The fact is that the removal of the tree has had no adverse effect to the value of the house so you will have issues attempting to claim from their deposit. You would not of planned to remove it and transport it to your own property so the law will say there has been no loss to you.

 

I agree that it looks nice with the tree but a surveyor would of picked it up as a possible issue when the mortgage company wanted it valued.

[easy-lift guy]

The fact is that the removal of the tree has had no adverse effect to the value of the house so you will have issues attempting to claim from their deposit. You would not of planned to remove it and transport it to your own property so the law will say there has been no loss to you.

 

I agree that it looks nice with the tree but a surveyor would of picked it up as a possible issue when the mortgage company wanted it valued.

 

Curious how you came about your opinion that the removal of said tree has no adverse affect to the value of the home?. From an esthetic point of view the tree was a main feature of the landscape. The planter bed was over grown, however the OP did sustain damages due the neglect of the tenant. Removing the tree and leaving a stump in the front yard immediately causes the value of this property to go down due to first impressions of any would be buyer or listing agent.

easy-lift guy

[treequip]

The fact is that the removal of the tree has had no adverse effect to the value of the house so you will have issues attempting to claim from their deposit. You would not of planned to remove it and transport it to your own property so the law will say there has been no loss to you.

 

I agree that it looks nice with the tree but a surveyor would of picked it up as a possible issue when the mortgage company wanted it valued.

 

Errrrr No

[Farmerdowling]

15 years selling property gave me that opinion

[treequip]

15 years selling property gave me that opinion

 

The fact is that the removal of the tree has had no adverse effect to the value of the house so you will have issues attempting to claim from their deposit.

 

On the contrary, mature vegetation is a proven asset to a property, what is left is an eyesore and detracts from the property value, its removal will improve the situation but that has a cost implication even if the tree is not replaced. The property has been damaged and that's what the deposit is for.

 

You would not of planned to remove it and transport it to your own property so the law will say there has been no loss to you.

 

You don't need to have had the intention of doing anything with the tree for there to have been a loss, the fact that you no longer have it is loss.

 

I agree that it looks nice with the tree but a surveyor would of picked it up as a possible issue when the mortgage company wanted it valued.

 

That's completely irrelevant in law, it MAY have been noted on a survey but that's not relevant to any case for loss

[Spruce Pirate]

I know this is an arb forum, but its only a tree. Does anyone really buy a house on the basis of a (fairly un-impressive) tree in the front garden? Sorry, but I know it wouldn't be top of the list of my priorities when buying a house.

 

As for criminal damage, I would have thought it would depend on how long the tennants had been in the property. Long term tennants may feel some sense of ownership and feel the right to work on "their" garden, regardless of whather it is legally theirs or not - it is after all their home. If, on the other hand, the restructuring of the garden was only carried out in the period after you told them that the lease wasn't being renewed in order that you could sell the property I would have thought you have a genuine case of malicious damage.

[felixthelogchopper]

I know this is an arb forum, but its only a tree. Does anyone really buy a house on the basis of a (fairly un-impressive) tree in the front garden? Sorry, but I know it wouldn't be top of the list of my priorities when buying a house.

 

As for criminal damage, I would have thought it would depend on how long the tennants had been in the property. Long term tennants may feel some sense of ownership and feel the right to work on "their" garden, regardless of whather it is legally theirs or not - it is after all their home. If, on the other hand, the restructuring of the garden was only carried out in the period after you told them that the lease wasn't being renewed in order that you could sell the property I would have thought you have a genuine case of malicious damage.

 

They may feel many things but that has no legal standing. They have a rental agreement and no more. It may be their home but it is not their property. They have no more right to destroy a tree than they would to start doing structural alterations to the fabric of the house. BTW, malicious damage as a term is from the Malicious Damage Act 1861 which was superceded by the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

[Spruce Pirate]

They may feel many things but that has no legal standing. They have a rental agreement and no more. It may be their home but it is not their property. They have no more right to destroy a tree than they would to start doing structural alterations to the fabric of the house. BTW, malicious damage as a term is from the Malicious Damage Act 1861 which was superceded by the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

 

If I need legal advice, I'm going to PM you.

 

I still think it's a little OTT for a small tree and some shrubs. Disclaimer: this opinion has no basis in law.